Hmm, I am still not being clear.
1. I agree with you completely about EULAs. I think we agree that the
purpose of EULAs is to establish that a copy of a work is being licensed,
and not sold, and is being provided under different conditions than simple
trading in a copyrighted work. Are yo
"Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote:
> However, my sense of the GPL is that the Free Software Foundation is relying
> only on Copyright for the GPL, and that there is nothing but a conditional
> (non-exclusive and royalty free) license of copyright conveyed in the GPL
> (apart from the "no warranty" aspec
"Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." wrote:
> If so, the FSF position would be that they own the
> copyright interest and THEY are assigning YOU a non-excusive copyright
> interest to make derivative works under the terms and conditions of the GPL.
In the case of works published by the FSF, certainly. In t
"Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." wrote:
> Well, to be precise, one of you is confusing the common sense meaning of
> "creator" with the meaning of that term under copyright law. Creation of a
> patch does not make you a creator under copyright.
It seems to me that that depends on the substantial origina
David Johnson wrote:
> If someone sends me a patch with no notice of copyright in the patch, but an
> attached email that says "here's a fix for your code", who does it belong to? I
> assume that I can use it in my own code as if it were mine, no questions asked.
IANAL, but I think you can treat
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, John Cowan wrote:
> IANAL, but I think you can treat that as a constructive license, since a
> non-exclusive copyright license need not be in writing. Of course, adding the
> patcher's name to the contributors list is a matter of civility, not law.
Of course I didn't mean t
I'm surprised there hasn't been more UCITA talk here. Awhile back this
article appeared from Stallman:
http://linuxtoday.com/stories/15948.html
He thinks that under UCITA free software licenses will be unable to
disclaim liability, because we are not shrinkwrap licenses. Only with
a shrink
(IANAL, but soon I'll need one if UCITA comes near me.)
I believe RMS fears are justified. The UCITA language
appears to be cleverly crafted.
With respect to the implied warranty.
UCITA creates implied warranty out of thin air EVEN IF there
is no consideration (i.e. $$ to the provider) excerpt
8 matches
Mail list logo
